AKD16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The applicant, AKD16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection concerning a protection visa. The core of the dispute centred on the process by which the independent merits review of the applicant's visa refusal was conducted, specifically whether the delegate who made the final decision had adequately considered the applicant's evidence. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate who conducted the independent merits review was required to have personally heard the applicant's oral evidence to make adverse credibility findings. This question engaged the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH* (2015) 256 CLR 326, which addresses the requirements for making adverse credibility findings in "hard-swearing" cases. The Court also considered whether the delegate was obliged to put precise details of country information to the applicant and whether the decision was legally unreasonable.

Justice Wilson found that the delegate who made the decision was not required to have personally heard the applicant's evidence, provided that the delegate had access to and considered the transcript of the evidence and the applicant's submissions. The Court affirmed that the principles in *WZARH* did not mandate personal observation of the witness by the decision-maker, but rather a proper consideration of the evidence presented. The Court also determined that the delegate had adequately put country information to the applicant and that the decision was not legally unreasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.